>>12863180 >Nietzsche is the most anti-romantic philosopher there is, against everything from its metaphysics (Hegel/idealism) down to applied aesthetics (Wagner)He is regarded as a romantic. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.
>I'm saying that philosophy is the most generalist field there is, so it's an everyman mentality to expect even niche specialists to cover it well. Based on what? You could say the same thing about the sciences.
> ...and you call me the schizo? WHERE did you get this from?Yes, schizo, you were just attacking the Everyman in the previous paragraph because it offended your pretense of aristocracy so much.
HOLY SHIT, you’re a dunce.
> Psychometrics was just an example of ethicists whipping scientists. Why are you wanting to discuss politics over it?It IS politics. You’re discussing the politics of these policies.
> I didn't say they were more important. I said the masses would flock to philosophers of the very analytics/"scientism" OP is against, instead of those philosophers which are against it And you’re so much smarter than the masses, right?
You’re not an aristocrat, I’m sorry.
> You're projecting a bogeyman of how you imagine me to be based on...2 or 3 posts in this thread? Schizo.Calling me schizo is not going to make you come off any less schizo, schizo. Go take your “holism” away from the kids, senile schizoboomer.
> IQ measures general intelligenceNo, it measures g, you fucking retard. You don’t even know what you’re talking about.
> I can't sympathise enough to cater to your every whim, projection, bogeyman or strawman.You can’t answer the question because it shows how contradictory your worldview is.
You put so much weight on IQ, but you won’t admit this entails that higher-IQ minorities are superior to you and should have more status in society.
